[meteorite-list] WANTED: small unclassified type 3's

From: Gary Fujihara <fujmon_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 06:02:29 -1000
Message-ID: <3B5F397E-EA75-47A9-B9A9-DD76F33B3592_at_mac.com>

Aloha Jeff, Rob, Michael, and Scott,
cc; metlist

I can agree with both sides of the argument, that the only way to be absolutely sure an ordinary chondrite is a type 3 is to have it analyzed.

However, many type 3 ordinary chondrite meteorites feature external characteristics that allow them to be recognized without analysis, or even being cut open, with a high degree of certainty.

Perhaps Scott (William) would be better suited to state 'possible type 3' in his inquiry.

Anybody want to tell me this uncut stone is not a type 3? ;^)
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.2138564189044.2133400.1394318075&type=1

gary

On Jun 6, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Jeff Kuyken <info at meteorites.com.au> wrote:

> Totally agreed Rob. As someone who collects primitive chondrites, I can say
> that there are heaps of examples you might think are Type-3 but turn out to
> be 4's. You absolutely need a thin section to tell with 100% certainty.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Rob Matson
> Sent: Friday, 7 June 2013 4:19 PM
> To: 'William Feek'; meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] WANTED: small unclassified type 3's
>
> Hi William,
>
>> Michael, No need to get all anal about the verbage, this ain't a Supreme
> Court
> hearing.
>> I guess I could have inserted the word "possible", maybe even used the
> word
> "potential",
>> but thankfully there's reasonable people who've displayed the capability
> of
> understanding
>> what I was getting at without the use of crystal clear lawyer speak such
> as
> what's written
>> in a software User Agreement. Go ahead and critique every line and word
> that I
> wrote,
>> I'll be the first to agree that it's probably wrought with problems, but
> I'm
> not going to
>> rewrite it, nor am I going to take draft's of future documents to the
> english
> department
>> of the nearest college for correction before posting.
>
> You're being overly reactionary in your reply to Michael. He raised a
> perfectly
> valid
> point: there is absolutely no way you can determine with confidence that an
> uncut
> meteorite (especially from NWA) is unequilibrated (type-3).
>
>> By the way, I can tell the difference between a Murchison and NWA 2086,
> and
> would
>> you beleive I can do so without the use of analysis.
>
> That is a completely different matter.
>
>> Similarly, there just so happens to be the existence of some stones which
> can
> be
>> determined to be type 3 without the use of analysis ...
>
> No -- not "similarly." William, you need to be disabused of this notion,
> unless
> your
> "some stones" is extremely restrictive.
>
>> ... so you mean to tell me that you'd have trouble being able to tell if a
> stone
>> such as Begga was a type 3 or not without the use of analysis?
>
> YES, ABSOLUTELY, if that stone is uncut. No meteoriticist would ever claim
> an
> uncut stone was unequilibrated without seeing a thin section.
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
>
>
> ______________________________________________
>
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
> ______________________________________________
>
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


Gary Fujihara
Big Kahuna Meteorites Inc.
PO Box 4175, Hilo, HI 96720
(808) 640-9161
http://bigkahuna-meteorites.com/
http://www.ebay.com/sch/fujmon/m.html
Received on Fri 07 Jun 2013 12:02:29 PM PDT